No2Nuclear News

Facebook

Together Against Sizewell C

It is with great sadness we report the sudden death of John Large who passed away on November 2 after a heart attack. John was a highly knowledgeable and independent nuclear engineer who gave valuable help to UK environmental groups especially in the 1980s and 1990s, and international groups more re...

Together Against Sizewell C

Sellafield 'hit by delays and £900m overspend'
Costs of major projects in the run up to decommissioning Sellafield's nuclear site are likely to over-run by £913m and face long delays, a report says.

The Public Accounts Committee also said the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) had cancelled three projects since 2012, costing taxpayers £586m.

The committee said in its report it remained sceptical about the NDA's long-term strategy at the site.

But the NDA said the report recognised improvements had been made since 2015.

Despite the progress since that previous inspection, the committee found delays and expected cost over-runs with 14 major projects, which have an overall estimated total cost of £6bn.

The committee added the NDA had not fully reviewed why its projects ran into difficulties.

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, deputy chairman of the committee, said: "The government's oversight of the NDA's performance could and should be much better, particularly on projects at Sellafield that cost a considerable amount of public money.

"The NDA failed in both the procurement and management of this contract and cost the taxpayer £122m."
Its report questioned whether the authority was "achieving the wider economic benefits that would help justify the vast amounts of public investment at Sellafield."

The NDA said it would respond in full to the committee's evidence at a later date.

But a spokeswoman said: "The report recognises that since 2015, when the NDA announced its intention to make Sellafield Ltd a subsidiary of the NDA, significant milestones in reducing risk at our largest and most hazardous site have been met.

"It also recognises the improvement that has been made in reducing delays and expected cost overruns."

She added "building on this improving trajectory" remains a "priority".

It seems that EDFE are gearing up for their 3rd consultation in Jan 2019. Letters have been sent to people whose land may be affected by the proposed development of SZC, This appears to be in connection with possible new or for alteration to roads etc.
There is only one answer.
NO SZC consequently no need for the East Suffolk people, their homes or the countryside to be disturbed by a unneeded Nuclear Power Station.

Together Against Sizewell C

Together Against Sizewell C

EDF's much-postponed plan for a reactor in Normandy of the same kind as those earmarked for Britain has come in for stinging criticism from France's nuclear watchdog. A senior official at the Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire implicitly accused the French state electrician of delaying the disclosure that at least 33 welds at the European Pressurised Reactor that is under construction in Flamanville were substandard and needed to be repaired at a cost of €400 million. EDF says that the teething troubles it has encountered at Flamanville will help to smooth the construction of two EPRs at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

Together Against Sizewell C

EDF is pushing to begin construction of its Sizewell C nuclear power station on the east coast of the England by the end of 2021, the company confirmed on Tuesday. The French utility will hold its third and final round of consultations with stakeholders on the project in January 2019 and submit planning applications in early 2020, paving the way for a 2021 construction start date, Simone Rossi, EDF Energy chief executive, told delegates at the Energy UK annual conference on Tuesday. The company said that replicating what it has learnt with the design and permitting of Hinkley Point C, which the company is currently building in south-west England, could reduce the construction costs of Sizewell by 20 per cent.

This would need to be accompanied by a reduction in the cost of capital, however, he said. The government is currently considering implementing a new funding model for nuclear power stations dubbed the "regulated asset base". The RAB model would give investors the comfort of a long term rate of return, overseen by the sector watchdog, based on the value of their regulated asset base, rather than through a negotiated strike price.

Together Against Sizewell C

TASC are totally opposed to Sizewell C unlike TEAGS who are just campaigning for a new road from the A12 to the Sizewell C site and for the siting of accommodation blocks to be re-considered.
If EDF suggest at Stage 3 consultation to comply with TEAGS wishes, it will be just a small concession to the many problems such a massive undertaking in a remote rural area will cause.
TASC is under no illusion as to the devastation and disruption the 10 year build programme will have on the locality and we are gravely concerned for the well being of all local people and the high value environment in which we live not just the B1122 and the Accommodation blocks.

1 month ago

TASC are totally opposed to Sizewell C unlike TEAGS who are just campaigning for a new road from the A12 to the Sizewell C site and for the siting of accommodation blocks to be re-considered.
If EDF suggest at Stage 3 consultation to comply with TEAGS wishes, it will be just a small concession to the many problems such a massive undertaking in a remote rural area will cause.
TASC is under no illusion as to the devastation and disruption the 10 year build programme will have on the locality and we are gravely concerned for the well being of all local people and the high value environment in which we live not just the B1122 and the Accommodation blocks.

Letter to the EADT 19/06/18 "Energy Gateway" needs urgent decisions

Fiona Cairns (last week) was right to raise questions about the news that many more energy projects are now trying to crowd through the "Energy Gateway" at Sizewell. Fears and worries go much wider than just the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The news is that the start of the East Anglian offshore wind farm cabling now needs to be done. More big offshore zones are waiting out there. Then there are two undersea interconnector cables, projects Nautilus and Eurolink. These are necessary to balance weather changes across Europe and buy and sell electricty, also coming onshore at Sizewell.These cables need very big converter stations - measured by football pitch sizes - and It's all at Sizewell because of the route to the nearest national grid circuit, where EDF's nuclear power goes via the pylons built back in the nationalised nuclear industry days before EDF.

The other development, though not signalled yet, is the need for a vast nuclear dry store for 40 years or more for Sizewell C. It would need to be at least 6 times the size of the recently built dry store, needing extra land and costing too. A huge development because Sizewell C is two, not one reactor, and these two would be the world's biggest.

The impact of all this is going to be huge and far too much for Suffolk's poor infrastructure, for nature impact, for tourism, for residents and commuters. Stretched over a long period, 10-15 years for the nuclear project, a decade maybe for the wind farms - It seems to have shocked local politicians who've promoted the "Energy Gateway" so hard. Their own government has licenced it all and must have known - why were communities not told ?

What can be done ? The offshore wind farms are already licensed and building, the interconnectors are necessary for shortfalls and surpluses. But as time passes, more nuclear at Sizewell is looking less credible for a whole range of reasons. Meanwhile, cvommunities south of the Leiston-Sizewell road will face all of the cabling challenges. Local talk says EDF won't cooperate on land and pylon access. So, isn't it about time EDF admitted that Sizewell C is not suitable for Suffolk, not necessary given these other truly renewable supplies, not sustainable because a 60 year lifespan and 10 to 15 years to build mean it is going to be technologicaly redundant in any case. There are may more objections to Szewell C, but if it is no longer necessary, shouldn't it be cancelled ? It would free up land and pylon capacity and reduce the burden on the communities facing the cabling and converter stations impacts.